Olympic Web Site Features Pirated Content 235
An anonymous reader writes "Despite all the emphasis on protecting Olympic copyrights in China this year, the official web site of the Beijing Olympics features a Flash game that is a blatant copy of one of the games developed at The Pencil Farm. Compare the game on the Olympic site with 'Snow Day' at The Pencil Farm."
Re:Chinese copies? (Score:1, Informative)
Coca Cola did the same... but sortof fixed it. (Score:5, Informative)
Two weeks later it was reported that Joel Feitch got well compensated for it (exact amounts were not disclosed as part of the agreement).
Read all about it here [robmanuel.com], with accompanied footage.
Re:Chinese copies? (Score:2, Informative)
It's a byte-perfect copy of many of the elements in the game, sound and graphics. So it really is a copyright violation.
It's simply re-skinning some elements and publishing it as your own. Like taking Windows, make the default background red, and selling it as your own operating system.
Not just a copy... (Score:5, Informative)
I'd also like to point out that this is not just a clone of my game. They didn't see my game and set out to make a similar game. They actually stole my game. I'll say it again:
The Olympics stole my game.
They downloaded the swf file from my site, decompiled it, swapped out the little guy for the Fuwa characters, took my name off of it and republished it as their own. I can tell this is what happened because they are still using some of my original art from Snow Day (the clouds and the ice cube are exactly the same). I also took the liberty of decompiling their game and actually found it still contains the sound files from Snow Day, even though they aren't being used in the Olympic version. It even still has the splash sound effect from The Lake (I used the engine from The Lake to make Snow Day and must have forgot to delete this file).
Re:Article presents no evidence of copying?? (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously RTFA.
Re:Article presents no evidence of copying?? (Score:5, Informative)
Ummm... what? Did you read the article? It specifically does exactly what you say it does not do. It includes screenshots to show that many of the graphics are stolen (pixel for pixel exactly the same, not an approximation). And it includes text from the creator of the original game, documenting how he reviewed their game code and discovered that it was completely stolen, not clean-roomed. From the article:
I'm pretty sure that if the game the Olympics is using contains sound files that are basically leftover stubs from his other games then that's pretty damning evidence.
Sorry (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Article presents no evidence of copying?? (Score:4, Informative)
Any lawyers out there fancy taking on the Chinese Olympic Committee? Might not be a good idea... [guardian.co.uk]
Re:Copyright doesn't work like that (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Don't get mad, get even (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bullshit. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:So let me get this straight (Score:5, Informative)
You are looking at two different uses of the word 'copy', or rather, at two different levels of copying. Scrabulous copies the rules of Scrabble in a game developed by different people, and if there was a lawsuit for every internet game that - to put it mildly - took a great deal of inspiration from another, none of us would be able to move for the boxes full of litigation papers. This, on the other hand, is different, because it copies actual code and graphics from the original. You cannot legally protect game rules, but you can legally protect code and artwork.
There is also an irony issue here, in that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has always gone after people even vaguely infringing *it's* copyright with all the teeth-baring viciousness of a rabid attack dog, so to have a website associated with them involved in blatant copyright infringement is more than a little amusing, but that takes a back seat to the difference between the actual legal issues of the two.
Re:Copyright doesn't work like that (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bullshit. (Score:3, Informative)
They didnt strip out a lot of the unused resources.
Many of the original game files are still in there even when they arent used.
It doesnt take a genius to realise that many of the graphics and sounds are identical as well.
It appears like they did rewrite the code but its still a blatant copy.
They based it from the original swf, they didnt start from scratch.
Re:It is NOT fair use, or even close to it. (Score:5, Informative)
Here y'go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_Trade-Related_Aspects_of_Intellectual_Property_Rights [wikipedia.org]
Note that China is a participant in TRIPS (follow the link at the bottom t'see all participating countries). Software copyright is addressed (it is treated as a literary work under this agreement), and fair use is very limited.
Re:Chinese copies? (Score:5, Informative)
If true that's beyond coincidence or imitation.
That's not the only copy... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Chinese copies? (Score:1, Informative)
Not anyone who read the fucking article. I mean seriously, no one has mentioned it yet because the author of the original says:
I'd also like to point out that this is not just a clone of my game. They didn't see my game and set out to make a similar game. They actually stole my game.
So like, no- they didn't get permission.
Re:Actually, It works EXACTLY like that. (Score:1, Informative)
Hey idiot,
Please look up what RTFA means and then RTFA.
Thank you,
The Internet
Re:What de-compiler do you use? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Probably off-topic but what the hell... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Chinese copies? (Score:5, Informative)
No copyright on game idea, title, rules, gameplay. (Score:3, Informative)
Remember, you can't copyright the rules of a game - not even in the US of A.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html [copyright.gov]
Its legal in China ... (Score:3, Informative)
Here's the relevant clause of the Berne Covention [wipo.int]:
Since they don't exactly give their own nationals very much in the way of individual copyright protection, the use of a foreigner's material is no more protected than their own people's - in other words, no protection: This is legal under the Berne Convention.Since they are giving his material the same protection they would give works by their own people ("if the gov't want to use it, they can by fiat or emminent domain"), they can copy all they want for any official Chinese agency. Not only is it not "theft" (remember - even member nations don't regard copyright infringement as theft), its legal.
Also, instead of just reading the article, try both of the games. The chinese version plays smoother.
Too many posters are going down the "copyright fair use" track, which is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Yes, the music and images, and *some* of the code are protected - but not for public use in China by the government or its' designates.
Also, under chinese law, he has no claim anyway, even if it was a patent or trademark infringement instead of copyright. He has to be in a minority partnership with a chinese agent/business.whatever or he simply can't do business under chinese law. Only businesses which are either majority or completely owned by chinese nationals are legal in China. - so he has no standing for damages.
"No cake for you, round-eyes!"
Re:Actually, It works EXACTLY like that. (Score:3, Informative)